A critical autumn statement will begin to reveal science's place in the UK's post-Brexit identity.
Three months after the referendum, there is a sense of normality. Returning from a summer break, we find ourselves getting on with our jobs, no longer distracted by the political world rearranging itself around us.
But these are merely the first moments of an epic tale; the stirrings of a slow and ponderous beast. How are things shaping up for science three months after the referendum? Ask me again in three years.
At play is a curious mix of the immediate and the shockingly far-reaching. Considering both, let us assess how science has fared so far.
What has actually changed? Theresa May’s government saw changes of roles from top to bottom. The champions of science, be they politicians or officials, find themselves in new roles and new departments. As ever, this brings opportunity and risk: a voice for science may exist where previously there was none, but advocacy may be weakened in a place of traditional strength.
The single definite commitment came in August when the chancellor, Philip Hammond, announced that the Treasury would underwrite European Union grants for research, agriculture and business.
Investment and structural funds, such as the European Regional Development Fund that is supporting the building of the Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre in Manchester and the Thames Valley Science Park, will be underwritten for awards signed before November’s autumn statement, with a promise to consider how to support awards signed thereafter. Agriculture subsidies are guaranteed to 2020.
Research has received a longer-term commitment, with competitive EU funds, such as Horizon 2020 grants, underwritten until we leave the EU and for the lifetime of the project. This means that if, say, the UK formally exits the EU in 2020, a five-year grant awarded that year would be underwritten to 2025—representing a guarantee of 10 years. The autumn statement will formalise the chancellor’s commitment on EU grants, and I look forward to seeing the guarantee of Horizon 2020 funding set out explicitly.
We can also expect the autumn statement to signal a reassessment of the government’s financial position. We know that growth forecasts are down and public finances are still tight. So we at the Campaign for Science and Engineering, along with organisations across the scientific community, are gearing up to make the case for public investment in science and research once again.
So much for the first hundred days; where is this odyssey heading? In the long term, the negotiations will do no less than establish anew our place in the world. The process of going back to the drawing board to establish new trade agreements and new international relationships provides the opportunity to restate what we are about.
Where will science sit in the UK’s new profile? Will we define ourselves as innovators, makers, doers, explorers? Will we hold up our belief in creative, discovery-led education as a core value and a reason why other countries would want to connect?
The signs are positive. May has said that she remains committed to science and research and wants a positive outcome for science as we exit the EU. The business secretary Greg Clark has said that science will be at the heart of the government’s industrial strategy. These political signals amount to an invitation to researchers to show what a positive outcome for science in our new relationship with the world would look like.
The science community is rising to the challenge. Groups from several areas are convening to provide government with insight into the risks, challenges and opportunities. These include pharmaceuticals, engineering, academia and tech.
In each case, the overarching principles are consistent, focusing on the themes of access to people, investment, collaboration and regulation. The importance of agreeing international standards and regulation could mean better online child safety for the tech industry, or the ability to tackle rare diseases through multinational clinical trials for health. I believe we’re doing well in speaking to government with one voice, while still articulating our distinct needs.
What is clear is that leaving the EU is not one activity, but a context in which all activities are framed. The EU we eventually leave will be a very different place than it was at the referendum. The UK’s negotiations to exit it and to forge new relationships across the world will have a defining impact on science and research in the UK.
But so too will the setting of domestic fiscal policy, the higher education and research bill, and a new industrial strategy based on research and knowledge exchange. One voice is still needed to ensure science remains part of the story that will unfold.
Sarah Main is director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering.
More to say? Email comment@ResearchResearch.com
This article also appeared in Research Fortnight